Donald F. Huff v. State, 04-13-00891-CR

Appellant Donald F. Huff was indicted for murder after a motorcycle crash; the trial court admitted a hospital blood draw taken without a warrant.
The Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio) reversed the conviction, concluding the blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment for lack of exigent circumstances.
Officer Peeler investigated the crash, handled the DWI portion, conducted field sobriety tests, and accompanied Huff to the hospital; Peeler asked for a blood specimen at about 10:53 PM and the blood was drawn at 11:36 PM.
At trial Peeler answered “No” to a leading question asking whether any exigent circumstances prevented obtaining a warrant; the appellate opinion relied heavily on that testimony.
The State (Bexar County) filed a motion for rehearing arguing the court improperly relied on the officer’s subjective intent and misstated the proper exigency standard under McNeely.

Issue	State's Argument	Huff's Argument	Held
Whether the court improperly relied on officer’s subjective intent in assessing Fourth Amendment reasonableness	Objective test governs; officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant, so court should assess exigency on objective facts	Court relied on officer’s testimony that he never thought to get a warrant—supporting no exigency	Appellate opinion reversed conviction based on finding no exigent circumstances; State seeks rehearing arguing opinion used subjective intent
Proper legal standard for exigent circumstances in warrantless blood draws (post-McNeely)	McNeely requires courts to ask whether obtaining a warrant would significantly undermine efficacy of the search; courts must not demand a ‘now or never’ urgency or penalize officers for attempting consent first	No exigency shown; officer followed standard procedure but did not obtain a warrant, so warrantless draw unlawful	Court applied a stringent exigency test emphasizing officer’s failure to seek a warrant; State contends that under McNeely the officer acted reasonably given time elapsed and the need to preserve blood evidence

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment analysis)
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (focus on objective reasonableness of officer’s actions)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (subjective intent of officers does not invalidate otherwise objective probable cause)
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014) (reasonable mistakes of law can justify seizures)
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (warrantless blood draws require case-specific exigency analysis; ask whether obtaining a warrant would significantly undermine efficacy of the search)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (recognized exigent circumstances for warrantless blood draw in crash context under special facts)
United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) (courts should avoid 20/20 hindsight; assess reasonableness, not perfection)
Aliff v. State, 627 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (Texas CCA upheld warrantless hospital blood draw under exigent circumstances in analogous facts)